Wednesday, May 26, 2010

All agree or none shall pass

This is an article of The Jacksonian Party.

On 25 MAY 2010 Glenn Reynolds linked to an interesting, indeed compelling, article by Nicholas Rosenkranz on The Subjects of the Constitution.  This article will be followed with another on The Objects of the Constitution and a later book to explore this conception of judicial review of Constitutional law and cases.  I have previously written on this topic looking at formulations of Constitutional Structure with Strictly constructed or not?  In that I attempted to discern the differences between Strict Consturctionism, Originalism and Textualism.  I do not come to this topic from the law perspective, per se, and have no legal training just some common man familiarity with law. The Constitution is, in and of, itself not law, save for the few crimes and penalties mentioned within the text (ex. Treason and Impeachment).  The Constitution is a system of powers that are limited, enumerated, and sovereign within the limitations and enumerations, that is to say they are the exercise of sovereign power by the Nation of the United States of America.  It is a system of how one makes and designs a government to make laws, how that government works and just who gets which powers.  Thus it is a system of rules agreed upon by those who agree to abide by them and they state who they are in the Preamble.  Note that the Preamble is a statement of those individuals and what they agree to do and only invoke the Constitution as one means to do so at the very end of their statement.

To me this is a form of mechanical design theory (Wikipedia, YMMV):

In economics and game theory, mechanism design is the study of designing rules of a game or system to achieve a specific outcome, even though each agent may be self-interested. This is done by setting up a structure in which agents have an incentive to behave according to the rules. The resulting mechanism is then said to implement the desired outcome. The strength of such a result depends on the solution concept used in the rules. It is related to metagame analysis, which uses the techniques of game theory to develop rules for a game.

Thusly the Constitution can be viewed via metagame analysis, and is a set of metarules for making the rules of a game, which we call the federal government and how it works internally and externally under the Law of Nations conception of Nation State structure.

Nicholas Rosenkranz utilizes Formal Grammar of the English Language with the Subject, Verb, Object agreement system as its basis thus forming a systemic functional grammar basis analysis of how Constitutional law cases should be evaluated.  SFG is described thusly (Wikipedia, YMMV):

Systemic functional grammar (SFG) or systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is a model of grammar developed by Michael Halliday in the 1960s.[1] It is part of a broad social semiotic approach to language called systemic linguistics. The term "systemic" refers to the view of language as "a network of systems, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning";[2] The term "functional" indicates that the approach is concerned with the contextualized, practical uses to which language is put, as opposed to formal grammar, which focuses on compositional semantics, syntax and word classes such as nouns and verbs.

Systemic functional grammar is concerned primarily with the choices the grammar makes available to speakers and writers.[1] These choices relate speakers' and writers' intentions to the concrete forms of a language. Traditionally the "choices" are viewed in terms of either the content or the structure of the language used. In SFG, language is analysed in three different ways (strata): semantics, phonology, and lexicogrammar.[3] SFG presents a view of language in terms of both structure (grammar) and words (lexis). The term "lexicogrammar" describes this combined approach.

Notice that such an analysis can be done fully within a mechanical design theory approach as Formal Grammar for English, and analysis from same, are mechanism design systems.  In fact such a systemic analysis can yield structure beyond the mechanism, itself, and reveal much of the operation of the mechanism as designed via its grammatical composition.  The article does not utilize the logical notation system that the metarules can be boiled down to, but sticks to a more conversational approach that is more a reminder of simple sentence construction classes than of a Law Review article (although it is gloriously footnoted throughout).  Thus the objective of the actor is to present a highly coherent presentation of grammar as applied to the Constitution via the activity of presentation.

This analysis is one of the most compelling of the structural analysis reviews of the Constitution that I have run across as it gives an inherently logic-based review of the Constitution via its grammar and syntax.  Thus a key change in judicial review that started with the Progressive Era in full swing was the movement away from the Supreme Court to say who violated the Constitution and when they did so.  This shift from actors taking action at a discrete time starts with utilizing imprecise language for the basis of Supreme Court judicial reviews and even creates a blurring of the lines of who and when the Constitution to the point that statutes are seen as unconstitutional, not the actors who created such actions.  As all actions are taken by an entity, for such an action to be unconstitutional, then the entity that is doing that is in violation of the Constitution by the enumerated and limited powers it defines.  There are only three actors in the federal government:  Congress (the Legislative Branch), the President (the Executive Branch) and the Supreme Court (the Judicial Branch).  There are unconstitutional actions outside the federal government (the various limitations on the States), but for simplicity the systemic approach is used on the federal government and, once learned, then can be applied to all levels of Constitutional cases and law.

Modern Supreme Courts have moved from identifying actors, or who violates the Constitution, as a means to not get involved in political fights, by and large.  That means the imprecision of their rulings can and do create confusion about just what is and is not Constitutional and on what basis.  This means that proceedings that should be questioning a law's Constitutionality may be addressed to the wrong actor by plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court has allowed such proceedings which further confuse the issue of who violates the Constitution and when. 

Thus, in something like the Raich case of medical marijuana in California, the defense team argued that the violation of the Commerce Clause was done by the Executive Branch.  The Commerce Clause has a particular actor attached to it and that is Congress, thus any violation of the Commerce Clause in its extent of reach is not one of the Executive but the Legislative branch of government.  By attempting a Due Process procedure case, they did not bring a Congressional power over-reach case.  The difference is that in the Executive a singular action on a Constitutional law is the violation at one, singular time while in the Congressional instance the entire law is in violation from the moment it was passed.  The Executive, when acting within all other Constitutional constraints cannot be the target of a Commerce Clause case: only the Legislative branch and Congress by name, have the power to utilize the Commerce Clause and direct others in how to execute it.

In trying to blame the Executive on over-reach and admitting that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce, the case against intrusion into intrastate commerce was not made as that would be argued as an over-reach of Congressional (not Executive) power and a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.  By making the procedure an enforcement case, the Raich case was not doomed to failure, but was doomed to see its Executive part of the case fail as they did not address the power being used at the direction of its holder, which was and is Congress.  Not only did the Raich team make scant use of this argument, the Supreme Court only addresses it in a single footnote which, Mr. Rosenkranz rightly observes, should have been the opening statement of a judgement as it contained the subject, the who, of the power and the extent of that power as written in the Constitution.

In looking at the Depression era case of Wickard v. Filburn, the farmer producing wheat to for private purposes, which was upheld mainly due to the District Court not addressing the actual case and, instead, writing much about how the Agriculture Act had been campaigned for by Congress.  Later United States v. Lopez would put some restrictions on the intrusion of federal interstate commerce as the prior case set no real limits on it and could be seen as an open door to federal intrusion into State sovereignty.  In the Lopez and Raich case the government deployed the rubric of intrastate commerce if it 'significantly impacted' interstate commerce, and this has never been properly addressed as a concept in direct violation of the limited powers of Congress pertaining only to interstate commerce.  Under a precise grammatical review would there be any question of this rubric even being valid?  The power grant is exclusively for interstate commerce and the outcome of it is not given to the federal government to decide: there is to be equality of law and application between the States for commerce and the power is silent, thus not granting any power, on commerce within a State.  The sovereign power grant for one aspect is singular and complete, outside of that there is nothing: no grant, no provision, no support whatsoever.

This view of the active voice parts of the Constitution with definite actors is a vital review of the concept and the subject, as it allows much of the imprecise, ill-worded and ill-conceived rulings to be examined as to their actual following of the logic of the grammatical construction of the Constitution itself.  Those constructions have meaning as they are sovereign power grants by the people to their government for the Nation of the United States of America.  When Courts, professional lawyers and professors of law attempt to cloud the language, to invite imprecise words and concepts into their everyday work with the Constitution we all begin to suffer as the meaning of the words and their sentences can be read clearly and easily by a layman.  Congress used to cite their powers in the bills they authorized so there would be no question of the power grant, its source and its extent.  By muddying that as a concept and no longer even bothering to include it, Bills and then Acts become unclear as to their power, their extent and the content of what is being done with that power.

I very much look forward to The Objects of the Constitution and the passive voice sections and Amendments to see where this analysis goes in those realms.

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Fantasy outlook and destinations

The following is a personal commentary piece of The Jacksonian Party.

The Progressive movement is embodied in one futuristic television show that gained a wide, deep and enthusiastic following for the better part of two decades after the show's demise.  And it was not the darker program of The Prisoner that I go over in this piece.  No the program I am thinking about cast itself to looking at the farther future, beyond all the wars and problems of its era and at one where mankind would finally unite and truly see Martin Luther King's dream where it was the content of one's character that you are judged by, not the color of your skin.  It projected a world in which peace is finally established for all mankind.  The program was

292px-TOS_head

Star Trek and it projected a form of Kennedy forward-looking Progressivism that was not an instant hit, but gained a fanatical following and created one of the first of the fan-based systems of support for its followers.  You remember them:

292px-Star_Trek_TOS_cast

You remember those folks, right?  Steadfast crew able to represent the very highest of values in the galaxy, namely the Federation's, and actually willing to fight and die for basic liberties and freedom as concepts.  And not just verbal sparring, fighting and dying on one's own argument, either.  But the real thing.

Captain Kirk ripped shirt

This Captain epitomized the spirit of adventure, going into the unknown, of being the youngest Captain in the Fleet, and tended not to let his good sense get over-ruled by bureaucratic dictates like the Prime Directive.  Rules were made to be broken, after all... but still it was upheld as the very meaning of a non-interventionist policy even if it only applied to thriving, growing societies, and not like the people caught under the spell of Vaal.

Vaal

And to think we have had people complain about the primitiveness of the Command Line Interface for computers!  Just try to reprogram that one with that interface!  Lots of luck, I tellya.

The series also had going for it stand-ins for our Cold War adversaries: Klingons for the USSR and Romulans for the Chinese, plus assorted other races filling out the roster of places we really didn't want to think about in our real world.  Like how Ehrlich was saying overpopulation was a dire problem and that we would all end up shoulder to shoulder in the non-revolutionary way just like...

292px-Gideon_inhabitants

... the Gideonites.  They not only have a longer life span but, apparently, abolished all communicable diseases.

Probably by government edict.

This was a Star Trek that you could actually sink your teeth into during the Cold War: it had a bright futuristic outlook, gleaming modernity, peace and happiness on Earth that we never get to see, tradesmen plying their ways on private space craft, miners, alien races that were not all just bumpy forehead people, and actual conflict.  Plus credits just the same as cash and the common cold.  With that we could understand how that universe worked.

Jump ahead to Next Gen.

292px-TNG_head

By the 1980's Gene Roddenberry had 'matured' in his Progressive outlooks and the show reflected that:

292px-The_Next_Generation_Main_Cast_Season_1

This Enterprise, the latest and greatest of starships, would have so much space on board that there would be entire families to risk in exploring the unknown.  Yes, exploring the dangerous unknown is so safe that entire families volunteer for it!

facepalm

The Captain had a First Officer that would NOT take a promotion to further his career as he had a nice, safe job along with all the families and didn't want something hazardous like, say, being the captain of a Destroyer or Light Cruiser.

DoubleFacePalm

And in this extension of the previous universe, when the Klingon Empire faces collapse due to its main dilithium source planet blowing up, the entire Federation steps in to save this thriving culture that should be left to its own devices as stated by the Prime Directive!  You no longer need a mere captain for that as the entire Federation is willing to give up the Prime Directive for Political Expediency.  Lovely, no?

facepalm1

You can see from the images that while the Federation has, more or less, conquered the common cold, male pattern baldness still remains.  This captain is unable to tell the navigator where to head to and says, most royally, that he should 'Make it so'.  From captain of a mighty starship with firm direction to some minor aristocrat delegating where the ship should actually set course to winding up with a junior officer.  Hey!  I'm all for pushing responsibility downwards and such, but the actual direction of a starship really should come from something more than 'Make it so', no?

Actually fighting and dying for your beliefs and way of doing things?  That was banished until after the death of Gene Roddenberry.  Even then the guiding team behind Star Trek really didn't have a clue as to what made their universe run and Majel Barrett Roddenberry really didn't help much in that regard.  Scripts that actually required conflict on an on-going basis were doled out to non-premier programs like DS-9 and Voyager.  The disconnect between ST:TOS and ST:TNG was hard and went far beyond the fact the first three seasons were, basically, reprises of ST:TOS but with a prettier ship.

So families in exploratory vessels, captains who can't captain, first officers not looking for promotion, minor expediency as judged by military officers being replaced by political expediency of government... yeah there were a lot of changes in ST:TNG that make little to no sense whatsoever.  And all done in a single generation of the Fleet (with Sulu and Chekov representing the youngest of the previous generation with some overlap with Picard as the youngest of the Next Gen) which does not speak well to keeping tradition in a military organization as that is one of the greatest strengths of a military organization is understanding past conflicts, learning from those who came before you and upholding their traditions of service and loyalty.  We had some minor sense of that in ST:TOS and in the first movie with the historical timeline of ships named Enterprise... but that feeling is gone by Next Gen.

Plus in a single generation they went from people who actually made money, or credits...

Cyrano Jones and Bartender

... like that rascal... and a crew that knew what a credit was worth as you could purchase...

tribble1

... goods of great value.  That has degenerated to...

data-crusher-poker

... poker played with chips that represented... nothing.

This universe had gotten clean, antiseptic and represented the highest of Progressive values by doing away with money, conflict, danger and, generally, anything that could drive a plot.  In Star Trek all of this has been abolished, and you don't want to offend your enemies and, in fact, need to save them when disaster befalls them.  Like the Klingons.  So you have to invent newer and nastier foes that you can't really deal with to get any 'drama'.

For all their dark attire and nasty implants are these...

Borg_aboard_Enterprise_(NX-01)

... centrally ruled drones who have their wishes over-ridden by their leader really so different than what the Federation Council did to over-ride the Prime Directive to help sustain an oppressive, repressive and totalitarian Empire?  That is being unwilling to see change happen, to try and sustain an order that can't continue, to perpetuate an eternal stasis and precedence of order that can no longer even be held in fiction.  Star Fleet gets so over-extended that when it has to actually fight the Cardassians/Dominion it has to ask for help from the Romulans and Klingons.  From Empires.  Would they really help out a Federation that actually stuck to its credos, laws and methods, and thusly remained in opposition to them?  Or is this the case of fellow totalitarians helping out their brother Empire so as to preserve their own domains from threat of change to their status quo and, perhaps, get a leg up on this competitor?

So what do you get when you don't oppose thugs or totalitarian regimes, can't abide by the rule of law at the highest of all levels, and reduce your people to having no ability to gain from their work and put them into a position of barter when they meet up with anyone 'less advanced'?  Does that get you to a nice, gleaming, everybody is happy future?  Applied NOW does that allow you to uphold the law in all circumstances, or to let it decay?

Does it get you pretty, gleaming, anti-septic starships?

Or does it get you something like this...

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

Locutus_of_Borg_and_Borg_Queen

... or this...

lord1a

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

the-toadie-20070926043658050
The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

292px-USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)_at_galactic_barrier

Or this?

V8 Interceptor Front

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

Locutus_of_Borg_and_Borg_Queen

... or this...

lord1a

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

the-toadie-20070926043658050
The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

292px-USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)_at_galactic_barrier

Or this?

V8 Interceptor Front

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

Locutus_of_Borg_and_Borg_Queen

... or this...

lord1a

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

the-toadie-20070926043658050
The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

292px-USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)_at_galactic_barrier

Or this?

V8 Interceptor Front

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

Locutus_of_Borg_and_Borg_Queen

... or this...

lord1a

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

the-toadie-20070926043658050
The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Of course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

292px-USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)_at_galactic_barrier

Or this?

V8 Interceptor Front

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.